Poe v. Southeast Delco School District

MARTHA POE, in her own right and as parent and natural guardian of S. Poe, a minorv.SOUTHEAST DELCO SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

MEMORANDUM

Gerald
Austin McHugh United States District Judge

This is
an action brought under both Section 1983 and Title IX
arising out of allegations that an elementary school teacher
engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the minor
plaintiff. The parties have settled the action and the
settlement agreement explicitly provides for the plaintiff to
submit a petition for attorneys' fees and costs, subject
to Defendants' response and the Court's review.
Preliminarily, there seems to be a dispute between the
parties as to whether this motion is governed by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988 or by the settlement agreement. I am unable to
discern the significance of this dispute, because Defendants
seemingly agree that Plaintiff would in any event be deemed a
prevailing party under § 1988, Farrar v. Hobby,
506 U.S, 103 (1992), and Plaintiff seemingly concedes that
Defendants have reserved the right to object to specific
aspects of the Petition where warranted. In any case, the
Court does not construe the settlement agreement as
automatically rendering Defendants responsible for the amount
sought by Plaintiff, and will independently review the
defense objections.

As
background, it bears mention that the Court is intimately
familiar with the case not only from extensive motion
practice, but from the trial to verdict before a jury of a
companion case. Unquestionably, this was a complex case that
raised multiple legal issues of public importance, requiring
the intense involvement of counsel. This case was
consolidated with others, increasing the need for counsel to
confer in order to coordinate activities. In that regard, the
total amount of hours claimed by counsel is not excessive for
a case of this kind, nor are the costs incurred in any way
extraordinary. Assuming that a “loadstar”
analysis should be the point of departure, in broad terms
Plaintiff's petition is reasonable.

Turning
to the specific objections raised, I find the hourly rates
claimed by counsel to be reasonable, relying upon both the
judicially recognized survey of hourly rates conducted by
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, and the supporting
affidavit of Market Richter, Esq. The defense is correct that
no resume was submitted for paralegal Carol Barbett, but the
Court is satisfied based upon experience that a senior
paralegal continuously employed for more than 30 years at a
firm that pursues complex litigation fairly commands an
hourly rate in the Philadelphia metropolitan area of $145.
Defendant summarily objects to the rates requested, but
provides no persuasive reason for doing so.

With
respect to duplicate of time entries, counsel for Plaintiff
concedes that billing errors resulted in an overcharge of
$180, and that amount will be deducted. Beyond that, I am not
persuaded that the charges are duplicative because
necessarily there were instances where Mr. Williams and Ms.
Cole needed to confer. Furthermore, events which both
attended were watershed moments in the case such as argument
on the dispositive motions, attendance at mediation and
settlement conferences, and the deposition of Defendant
Hochschwender. Upon careful review, the only instance where
the participation of both counsel could be questioned would
be on October 26, 2016, at the depositions of witnesses
Karcher and Bristow. I will deduct $500 for the attendance of
Ms. Cole, but have not otherwise identified duplicative
billing.

As to
the objection that certain entries are too vague, although
the defense is correct that in some instances the task is
identified with more specificity than others, given the
undertaking in this case and the modest increments of time
challenged by the defense, I am satisfied that sufficient
detail has been provided.

Substantively,
Defendant Jordan argues that time billed for work involving
the School District defendants should be stricken, as well as
the cost for its expert on policy and procedure, because
summary judgment on the Monell claim was granted in
the District's favor. This argument has a superficial
appeal, but does not survive deeper scrutiny. This is a case
where the Plaintiff's claims involved “a common
core of facts or [was] based on related legal theories,
” where “counsel's time [is] devoted
generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult
to divide the hours expended on a claim-by-claim basis. Such
a lawsuit cannot be viewed as a series of discrete claims.
Instead the district court should focus on the significance
of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation
to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.”
Hensley v. Eckerhart,461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). More
significantly, as Plaintiff points out, although the Court
entered summary judgment in favor of the School District,
that ruling remained subject to appeal. The School District
is a party to the release, and its liability was definitively
extinguished because of the release. On that basis, I find
both the fees of the expert and counsel's hours involving
the Monell claim to be appropriate.

Finally,
as to the amounts claimed in reimbursement of Plaintiff's
damages experts, although Defendant is correct that no hourly
rate schedules were submitted, the experts' charges were
well with the common range for ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.